Category Archives: Your $

A new study shows how much time is wasted by employees at work using their mobile devices on personal tasks.

Answering that friend request while at work may not seem troublesome, but add up all the on-the-job smartphone screen time across the country and you’re talking $15 billion in lost productivity, a new study reveals.

The average office employee is spending about five hours a week on his or her cellphone on things that have nothing to do with the job, such as answering personal e-mail, according to the study, which was conducted for the staffing firm OfficeTeam.

Some workers are doing online shopping. Others are watching the highlights of last night’s Yankees or Mets game.

“If these numbers were true for every full-time worker in the US, that would add up to $15.5 billion in lost productivity every week due to professionals using their mobile devices for nonwork activities,” the study’s authors posit, using Department of Labor figures.

Some 600 workers and senior office managers were questioned at US companies with 20 or more employees. Besides using the cellphone to answer e-mails and sometimes visit social media sites, the employees also said they spent about 42 minutes a day on

“All in all, the average employee could be wasting more than eight hours per work week on activities unrelated to the job,” according to the study.

Besides visiting social media sites, employees use their phones to visit sports sites, play mobile games, shop or go to entertainment sites.

Although both male and female workers were using a cellphone for personal tasks, the study found males (32 percent) more commonly check their non-work e-mail, while females (33 percent) more commonly check social media networks.

The survey also found that workers are increasingly using their cellphones to go to sites blocked at work.

“More than half of the professionals — 58 percent — often use their personal devices at work to visit pages that are banned by their company, a 36 percent jump from the 2012 survey,” according to the study.

The eight hours a week of lost productivity can have a dramatic effect on a business, an OfficeTeam executive said.

“It’s understandable that employees may occasionally use their mobile devices or attend to personal tasks during business hours. But these activities can easily become big distractions,” said Brandi Britton, a district president for OfficeTeam.

Britton added, “To best manage their time, staff can take advantage of breaks during lunch and throughout the day to catch up on non-work e-mails or errands.”

Another OfficeTeam official noted that the use of cellphones and other mobile devices has become an integral part of the personal and professional lives of most people.

He argued that employers should understand that banning cellphones and other mobile devices is not a reasonable option, but that they should establish limits on their use.

“Employers,” said Daryl Pigat, a division director for OfficeTeam, “need to establish rules about where and when cellphones are permitted and when they are not.”

Indictments for Ponzi schemes and investor fraud have been increasing every day. While pundits, congress and financialexperts pinpoint problems with regulatory agencies such as the SEC, the real problem centers on what I call the “Due Diligence Mess,” the way in which this process is handled within the legal and financial community.

While I agree that the SEC and the SIPC failed to uncover the crimes of Madoff and his affiliates, the initial decision to invest with Madoff was made by the investors and it was their responsibility to make an informed decision. That decision must not be based solely on government information.

Anyone who seeks to invest in a business or financial product knows that there is risk, and that risk is primarily based on the ethics and competency of the people running the operation. While the U.S. economy nose-dived, some geographic areas did not have the same economic problems as the rest of the country. Most notable was South Dakota and Indiana.

When banking and financial executives were asked the reason for this in a recent NPR interview their answer was simple: “We did not get involved in the sub-prime phenomenon and we stayed with the conservative financial model that we have always used.” Ethical, cautious, professional people and organizations provide safe havens for investment. Those qualities are best discovered through forensicpsychology and criminal investigation models.

Just as forensic accounting is a powerful tool in vetting the numbers of an organization, forensic criminal investigation models are just as powerful in vetting the quality and ethics of people leading an organization. The following is a list of three reasons why I believe the financial crimes of the past year will continue to occur unless radical changes are made in the due diligence process.

The Problem with Databases

With the aggressive rise of the Internet in the mid 1990’s the use of online databases has become a mainstay in the daily processes of many law firms and accounting firms.

The problem with these databases is their dependence on local, state and federal agencies to provide accurate and updated information. Our legalservices division investigators have found that 40 to 45% of the information that comes through these databases is inaccurate or outdated even information from the “premier’ providers.

Our investigators also discovered that much of the remaining information cannot be verified, which begs the question: “Why are legal and accounting professionals still depending on these inadequate systems?” The answer is simple they are inexpensive and convenient.

There is nothing inexpensive or convenient about due diligence. In my experience it requires time and professional manpower to collect accurate data, confirm those data and assess the information. “Easy” does not enter into the process of accurate due diligence.

The other problem with databases is that the information must be assessed using criminal forensics. What may seem unimportant to the untrained eye can be a critical element to an investigation. Knowing what to look for and knowing how that information plays into a psychological assessment of a fund manager, business executive or broker comes only from forensic psychology which has the distinct ability to look behind the professional facade of people.

Bottom line: due diligence is as much a criminal investigation as it is a financial and legal process.

Forensic Accountants but not Forensic Investigators?

Over the past 10 years, the use of forensics accountants has become increasingly commonplace in civil and divorce legal cases. Their value as a tool for uncovering financial crimes has become a legal necessity.

However, the use of forensic investigators in due diligence is a legal rarity. This contradiction is troubling. In most cases cost is the primary factor – “my client doesn’t want to spend the money!” How ironic this is since the client will be investing a significant amount of money in a business enterprise or handing over the significant amount of money to an investment firm.

Rather than explain the value of a proper investigation some professionals will attempt to do the work “in house.” This is done through their favorite private investigator.

Contrary to popular belief most private investigators do not have criminal forensics training. Their training consists of “experience” which can be inconsistent and unreliable. Even many federal agents are not trained in this process. Inexperienced investigators without proper forensics training set the stage for a legal and financial disaster.

Data Without Context

Data without context are useless. Because many professionals lack criminal forensics training, they do not understand how to accurately assess human data. Because of this limitation, many professionals miss key information that would have saved their clients great pain.

A perfect example is the correlation between trespassing, breaking and entering, and sex crimes. I have seen this fact missed many times in background checks and criminal investigations.

What seems like unimportant data can be an indicator of narcissistic activities, embezzlement or other negative behaviors on the part of the people running an organization. Bottom line: either data are accurately assessed or people will suffer.

The current state of due diligence is woefully inadequate in determining risk. The current focus of such efforts is mistakenly solely placed on the company being purchased or the organization that will handle the client’s money and not on the people operating these entities.

Professionals and investors alike must understand the need for forensics within this process. Due diligence is about assessing the people and people assessment has and always will be the domain of forensic psychology.